(06-15-2017 08:14 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I can just see it now, "Owl 69/70/75 speaks a little bit of Russian and he bought a condo from Trump's real estate company, so that proves he colluded with the Russians to steal the election from Hillary."

Careful. Some people would calll that a confession.

Were you as concerned and vocal about the same level of conflicts of interest present in the Clinton Global Initiative issues? If you were --- good for you for being consistent.

Most progressives turned a blind eye to it, all the while continuing to condemn the Trump issues at the same level that you raise.

And yes, like you I also see the possibility there. But, I also feel (and felt) that Clinton shared the same position and really wasnt 'touched' by it as is our current President. But then again, I also think mostly of the MSM as Democratic operatives with bylines, so I am not much surprised by that outcome.

(06-16-2017 12:33 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Were you as concerned and vocal about the same level of conflicts of interest present in the Clinton Global Initiative issues? If you were --- good for you for being consistent.

Most progressives turned a blind eye to it, all the while continuing to condemn the Trump issues at the same level that you raise.

And yes, like you I also see the possibility there. But, I also feel (and felt) that Clinton shared the same position and really wasnt 'touched' by it as is our current President. But then again, I also think mostly of the MSM as Democratic operatives with bylines, so I am not much surprised by that outcome.

I'll fully admit I wasn't as vocal about the potential issues with the global fund and Sec of State Clinton - likely for three reasons. 1) the same posters who aren't caring about this issues were up in arms over HRC's and were bringing forward the potential conflicts of interest 2) she was not POTUS at the time 3) she made it abundantly clear that she would completely sever ties with the institute had she won the election.

And you can have the cynical view of the MSM, and I'll admit there is an overall slant left in most media coverage, but Trump made his bed when he kicked the hornets nest and basically spent an entire campaign antagonizing the MSM. Same thing with the intelligence community. Trump is just one big self-inflicted wound at the moment.

edit: and again, I'm not condemning Trump for selling properties to LLCs. I am, however, condemning the significant potential for conflicts of interest that he has intentional maintained.

(06-15-2017 09:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I can understand your critiques about the lack of analysis of the pre/post-nomination data. But I think the significant increase in LLC purchases is noteworthy in and of itself. There is a reason people (myself included) were so concerned about potential conflicts of interest with Trump, and this is a prime example.

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. That's why I would want to see more thorough analysis. If the authors truly spent six months on this and this is as far as they got, then they don't really understand the situation.

By the way, the LLC/corporation confusion that I quoted is not the only time they make that mistake in the article. Maybe it's not a serious mistake if made by an ordinary citizen. But for someone writing a story that is supposed to reflect serious analysis, it's a pretty egregious mistake. Particularly when you repeat it.

But here's the real problem. This article is very specifically aimed at stoking precisely the kind of fear of conflicts of interest that concerns you, based upon innuendo rather than any supporting facts. LLCs can be used to hide nefarious purposes, and very infrequently are. So can partnerships and corporations, for that matter. They could hide efforts to overpay Trump for properties and therefore buy influence. The sales prices on units sold to LLCs suggest pretty strongly that didn't happen. But so what, in another universe where the sky is green, it could happen. And speculation about it triggers exactly the kinds of fears that you describe. So let's publish it.

(06-15-2017 12:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So one of your main points is that an LLC, a limited liability company, is not a corporation? How is that possible?

Because that's the law.

Quote:By definition, a corporation is: a company or group of people authorized to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law.
By definition an LLC is: a corporate structure whereby the members of the company cannot be held personally liable for the company's debts or liabilities.

Where did you get those definitions? They're simply incorrect. The corporation definition fails to mention limited liability, which is perhaps the most important characteristic, and the LLC definition is just flat wrong.

(06-16-2017 07:03 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-15-2017 12:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So one of your main points is that an LLC, a limited liability company, is not a corporation? How is that possible?

Because that's the law.

Quote:By definition, a corporation is: a company or group of people authorized to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law.
By definition an LLC is: a corporate structure whereby the members of the company cannot be held personally liable for the company's debts or liabilities.

Where did you get those definitions? They're simply incorrect. The corporation definition fails to mention limited liability, which is perhaps the most important characteristic, and the LLC definition is just flat wrong.

First: I literally googled "corporation definition" and it was the exact definition given

Second: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/llc....out-no-ads

Your comment about the corporation gets to the heart of my original point. You're speaking about how it is defined in a legal sense. Like most words, it can have multiple meanings, some more broad and some more specific.

And how is the LLC definition wrong?

(06-16-2017 07:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Like most words, it can have multiple meanings, some more broad and some more specific.

Some correct and some not. Those definitions are not.

Quote:And how is the LLC definition wrong?

It's not a corporate structure. It can have a corporate structure, or a partnership structure, or even no structure at all. It's usually treated as a partnership for state law purposes.

I've already pointed out what's wrong with the corporation definition. That could be describing a partnership (under modern law, although not common law) or any of several forms of organization. The one thing about it that I find correct is that by recognizing the inherent personhood of a corporation at law, it blows apart the idea that Citizens United is where we got the idea that a corporation is a person. It is this personhood that gives rise to the limitation of liability. ETA: The person part would actually eliminate partnerships, at least in part, because they are treated as entities for some purposes but as aggregates for others. In particular, they are treated as aggregates for lawsuit purposes, making every partner liable (except for limited partnerships and some other special forms recognized in various state laws). The person language would not eliminate LLCs, which are treated as corporations for tax and litigation, but as aggregates for other purposes (such as domicile for litigation purposes, which can be one problem with LLCs). See, I can misspeak too, but I can correct mine in less than six months.

Dubbed-down definitions may be fine for ordinary conversation (I happen to think they are not, but I'm not the final word on that). But if you're going to spend six months researching what is supposed to be an authoritative article, I expect you at least to get the basic definitions right.

You give me those definitions in my b-law class, and you're getting a zero.

(06-16-2017 06:38 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-16-2017 12:33 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Were you as concerned and vocal about the same level of conflicts of interest present in the Clinton Global Initiative issues? If you were --- good for you for being consistent.

Most progressives turned a blind eye to it, all the while continuing to condemn the Trump issues at the same level that you raise.

And yes, like you I also see the possibility there. But, I also feel (and felt) that Clinton shared the same position and really wasnt 'touched' by it as is our current President. But then again, I also think mostly of the MSM as Democratic operatives with bylines, so I am not much surprised by that outcome.

I'll fully admit I wasn't as vocal about the potential issues with the global fund and Sec of State Clinton - likely for three reasons. 1) the same posters who aren't caring about this issues were up in arms over HRC's and were bringing forward the potential conflicts of interest 2) she was not POTUS at the time 3) she made it abundantly clear that she would completely sever ties with the institute had she won the election.

And you can have the cynical view of the MSM, and I'll admit there is an overall slant left in most media coverage, but Trump made his bed when he kicked the hornets nest and basically spent an entire campaign antagonizing the MSM. Same thing with the intelligence community. Trump is just one big self-inflicted wound at the moment.

edit: and again, I'm not condemning Trump for selling properties to LLCs. I am, however, condemning the significant potential for conflicts of interest that he has intentional maintained.

I'm sorry but I am chuckling a tad at the line drawing here, and thank you for your frankness.

So there is a BIG difference between being President, and being SOS? Sorry, while there is a difference in power, there is not such a significant difference that a distinction should be be made for conflicts of interest.

Also, considering Hillary was the HEAVY ODDS ON FAVORITE to be the next President, I find that line drawing a tad dodgy as well. No offense, but it is enimical even in legalized betting on campaigns (i.e. above board political donations) to be 'early money' to success. Why do you think George P Bush rakes in the campaign funds he does for Land Commissioner? Same value proposition lies in the time discount of money for not-so-above-board type donations (like the appearance of what at least some of the donations to the CGI are/were intended).

As for third comment, well, it is well within your subjective state of mind on whether to believe Hillary stating she would sever her ties. But it is not just 'her ties'? Nice money flowing to Chelsea as putative director has almost the same effect for access and cachet as that money flowing to the Bill and Hillary living expense piggy bank known as the CGI. And to be blunt, and this is one of the main reasons I could never vote for Hillary, was a certain lack of anywhere near a normal ability to not lie when not even needed. SO while I am glad she said it, numerous backdoors would still exist *and* I simply regard her words as I regard one singular sentence of hers: "I remember hearing the sniper fire as we ran under cover across the tarmac."

So thank you for your explanation, but I don't think any of those reasons would work subjectively for me to clear her in that manner.

Thanks for your candor.

(06-16-2017 07:53 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-16-2017 07:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Like most words, it can have multiple meanings, some more broad and some more specific.

Some correct and some not. Those definitions are not.

Quote:And how is the LLC definition wrong?

It's not a corporate structure. It can have a corporate structure, or a partnership structure, or even no structure at all. It's usually treated as a partnership for state law purposes.

I've already pointed out what's wrong with the corporation definition. That could be describing a partnership (under modern law, although not common law) or any of several forms of organization. The one thing about it that I find correct is that by recognizing the inherent personhood of a corporation at law, it blows apart the idea that Citizens United is where we got the idea that a corporation is a person. It is this personhood that gives rise to the limitation of liability. ETA: The person part would actually eliminate partnerships, at least in part, because they are treated as entities for some purposes but as aggregates for others. In particular, they are treated as aggregates for lawsuit purposes, making every partner liable (except for limited partnerships and some other special forms recognized in various state laws). The person language would not eliminate LLCs, which are treated as corporations for tax and litigation, but as aggregates for other purposes (such as domicile for litigation purposes, which can be one problem with LLCs). See, I can misspeak too, but I can correct mine in less than six months.

Dubbed-down definitions may be fine for ordinary conversation (I happen to think they are not, but I'm not the final word on that). But if you're going to spend six months researching what is supposed to be an authoritative article, I expect you at least to get the basic definitions right.

You give me those definitions in my b-law class, and you're getting a zero.

As an aside, if you are going to write a pointed and edgy piece on conflicts of interest regarding specific nuanced and specifically named entity types, at least try not to make a fundamental error in describing those entities.

This is akin to a writing a piece on the Bakken formation and describing that formation as oil-bearing granite. To any person having any background in the specialty area, that would mark the author as simply not knowing much about the subject matter.

(06-16-2017 09:34 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  As an aside, if you are going to write a pointed and edgy piece on conflicts of interest regarding specific nuanced and specifically named entity types, at least try not to make a fundamental error in describing those entities.
This is akin to a writing a piece on the Bakken formation and describing that formation as oil-bearing granite. To any person having any background in the specialty area, that would mark the author as simply not knowing much about the subject matter.

Good analogy. It's sort of awkward to write a lengthy article about the evils of LLCs when you don't know the difference between an LLC and a corporation.

And now the Trump administration has banned video and audio recordings of press briefings... WTF? As CNN's Jim Acosta put it, this wouldn't be tolerated at a City Council meeting, but it's OK at the White House?

In other news, Republicans don't want to work in Trump WH:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/...e09b46c52d

Even worse, it would appear Barron is an Arsenal supporter.

(06-19-2017 03:32 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  And now the Trump administration has banned video and audio recordings of press briefings... WTF? As CNN's Jim Acosta put it, this wouldn't be tolerated at a City Council meeting, but it's OK at the White House?

In other news, Republicans don't want to work in Trump WH:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/...e09b46c52d

Even worse, it would appear Barron is an Arsenal supporter.

.


CNN

That explains a lot.

(06-19-2017 08:16 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 03:32 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  And now the Trump administration has banned video and audio recordings of press briefings... WTF? As CNN's Jim Acosta put it, this wouldn't be tolerated at a City Council meeting, but it's OK at the White House?

In other news, Republicans don't want to work in Trump WH:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/...e09b46c52d

Even worse, it would appear Barron is an Arsenal supporter.

.


CNN

That explains a lot.

You know the ban is for all journalists in the press briefings, right?

(06-19-2017 09:52 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 08:16 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 03:32 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  And now the Trump administration has banned video and audio recordings of press briefings... WTF? As CNN's Jim Acosta put it, this wouldn't be tolerated at a City Council meeting, but it's OK at the White House?

In other news, Republicans don't want to work in Trump WH:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/...e09b46c52d

Even worse, it would appear Barron is an Arsenal supporter.

.


CNN

That explains a lot.

You know the ban is for all journalists in the press briefings, right?

And this is important because?

For two hundred years we let journalists take notes and report the news. Now they can't?

(06-20-2017 01:53 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 09:52 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 08:16 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 03:32 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  And now the Trump administration has banned video and audio recordings of press briefings... WTF? As CNN's Jim Acosta put it, this wouldn't be tolerated at a City Council meeting, but it's OK at the White House?

In other news, Republicans don't want to work in Trump WH:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/...e09b46c52d

Even worse, it would appear Barron is an Arsenal supporter.

.


CNN

That explains a lot.

You know the ban is for all journalists in the press briefings, right?

And this is important because?

For two hundred years we let journalists take notes and report the news. Now they can't?

We only started recording the press briefings in 1976? Interesting.

But seriously, it is important because reporters don't have the tools/ability to transcribe an entire briefing by hand. The ability to record briefings allows them to do that, and at the same time be more focused on asking questions and probing the administration, which is a necessary function of the press.

Why would it be good to hamstring the press and make the administration more opaque? You're for a less open White House?

Edit: also, this now gives an administration that is notorious for lying, the ability to lie more easily. Reporters can no longer go to a video tape or recording and call them on their lies, and the WH can just yell "fake news" whenever they want.

(06-20-2017 01:53 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 09:52 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 08:16 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 03:32 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  And now the Trump administration has banned video and audio recordings of press briefings... WTF? As CNN's Jim Acosta put it, this wouldn't be tolerated at a City Council meeting, but it's OK at the White House?

In other news, Republicans don't want to work in Trump WH:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/...e09b46c52d

Even worse, it would appear Barron is an Arsenal supporter.

.


CNN

That explains a lot.

You know the ban is for all journalists in the press briefings, right?

And this is important because?

For two hundred years we let journalists take notes and report the news. Now they can't?

Guess you'd be okay giving up your HDTV for watching sports and instead catch the game on the AM radio?

(06-20-2017 09:05 AM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(06-20-2017 01:53 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 09:52 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 08:16 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 03:32 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  And now the Trump administration has banned video and audio recordings of press briefings... WTF? As CNN's Jim Acosta put it, this wouldn't be tolerated at a City Council meeting, but it's OK at the White House?

In other news, Republicans don't want to work in Trump WH:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/...e09b46c52d

Even worse, it would appear Barron is an Arsenal supporter.

.


CNN

That explains a lot.

You know the ban is for all journalists in the press briefings, right?

And this is important because?

For two hundred years we let journalists take notes and report the news. Now they can't?

Guess you'd be okay giving up your HDTV for watching sports and instead catch the game on the AM radio?

Sigh - - I go to as many games in person as I can, and to be honest, I listen to radio way more than I watch games on TV. Driving around Saturdays for the last 6 years between cross country meets, baseball games and volleyball tournaments, I can honestly say that I've heard a lot more Rice football (certainly more than 10 times as much) than I've seen on TV. Same is true with regard to seeing games in person, more than 10 times as much.

(06-20-2017 09:05 AM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(06-20-2017 01:53 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 09:52 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 08:16 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 03:32 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  And now the Trump administration has banned video and audio recordings of press briefings... WTF? As CNN's Jim Acosta put it, this wouldn't be tolerated at a City Council meeting, but it's OK at the White House?

In other news, Republicans don't want to work in Trump WH:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/...e09b46c52d

Even worse, it would appear Barron is an Arsenal supporter.

.


CNN

That explains a lot.

You know the ban is for all journalists in the press briefings, right?

And this is important because?

For two hundred years we let journalists take notes and report the news. Now they can't?

Guess you'd be okay giving up your HDTV for watching sports and instead catch the game on the AM radio?

Just saying, not allowing recording devices is NOT a news blackout.

(06-20-2017 06:50 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-20-2017 01:53 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 09:52 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 08:16 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 03:32 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  And now the Trump administration has banned video and audio recordings of press briefings... WTF? As CNN's Jim Acosta put it, this wouldn't be tolerated at a City Council meeting, but it's OK at the White House?

In other news, Republicans don't want to work in Trump WH:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/...e09b46c52d

Even worse, it would appear Barron is an Arsenal supporter.

.


CNN

That explains a lot.

You know the ban is for all journalists in the press briefings, right?

And this is important because?

For two hundred years we let journalists take notes and report the news. Now they can't?

We only started recording the press briefings in 1976? Interesting.

But seriously, it is important because reporters don't have the tools/ability to transcribe an entire briefing by hand. The ability to record briefings allows them to do that, and at the same time be more focused on asking questions and probing the administration, which is a necessary function of the press.

Why would it be good to hamstring the press and make the administration more opaque? You're for a less open White House?

Edit: also, this now gives an administration that is notorious for lying, the ability to lie more easily. Reporters can no longer go to a video tape or recording and call them on their lies, and the WH can just yell "fake news" whenever they want.

200 is a general number. Reporters didn't start in 1776 either, so maybe more than 200. I wonder how Frankilin got the news to print without an interview cam, or how we ever knew what Lincoln actually said at Gettysburg. The message is that recording devices are a requirement for a free press to do their job.

I come from a era when Rice students took notes during lectures, and reporters took notes during interviews. Worked OK back then, but the press was not as partisan then either.

I do not why the WH did this, nor do I know if reporters unused to writing things down can cope, but the daily press briefings will continue. It is not a news blackout.

(06-20-2017 10:14 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-20-2017 06:50 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-20-2017 01:53 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 09:52 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 08:16 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  .


CNN

That explains a lot.

You know the ban is for all journalists in the press briefings, right?

And this is important because?

For two hundred years we let journalists take notes and report the news. Now they can't?

We only started recording the press briefings in 1976? Interesting.

But seriously, it is important because reporters don't have the tools/ability to transcribe an entire briefing by hand. The ability to record briefings allows them to do that, and at the same time be more focused on asking questions and probing the administration, which is a necessary function of the press.

Why would it be good to hamstring the press and make the administration more opaque? You're for a less open White House?

Edit: also, this now gives an administration that is notorious for lying, the ability to lie more easily. Reporters can no longer go to a video tape or recording and call them on their lies, and the WH can just yell "fake news" whenever they want.

200 is a general number. Reporters didn't start in 1776 either, so maybe mire than 200. I wonder how Frankie got the news to print without an interview cam. The message is that recording devices are a requirement for a free press to do their job.

I come from a era when Rice students took notes during lectures, and reporters took notes during interviews. Worked OK back then, but the press was not as partisan then either.

I do not why the WH did this, nor do I know if reporters unused to writing things down can cope, but the daily press briefings will continue. It is not a news blackout.

Did anyone suggest it was a news blackout?

It's just another example of this White House trying to remain opaque and avoid answering questions posed by the press. I understand why the WH is doing this - it makes sense because it allows them to more tightly control the narrative. Do you like the decision by the White House? If so, why?

I do love Steve Banon's explanation as to why these changes have been implemented.

Quote: Neither Spicer nor deputy press secretary Sarah Sanders responded to queries about the changes to the briefings. Asked why the briefings are now routinely held off-camera, White House chief strategist Steve Bannon said in a text message “Sean got fatter,” and did not respond to a follow-up.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc...ne/530916/